PERICLES

point taken, actually I don't regard Christianity as that magic pudding, and no, humanity will indeed not be united in the way you seem to think I suggest.

And don't worry about Godwins law, I can respond meaninfully, as I realize ur intent was serious.

It seems to me, (just as a casual observer) that the likes of those you mentioned, had a reason to be passionate, in Hitlers case, he appears to have a firm belief in some kind of divine calling. Quite wierd reading his quotes. The others, may well have felt the same, irrespective of the waywardness of their understanding.

By contrast, and speaking with a hugely broad brush here, the Soviet Union deliberately taught atheism, which I feel is more likely to produce an atmosphere of despair, specially when things are tough.

You should know me well enough by now, to realize that what I offer and emphasise is the individual encounter with God through Christ, not the radical 'Christianisation' of society in a legislative way, though it must seem like I advocate that at times when I'm speaking purely in 'Christian in a democracy' mode. It must be confusing at times. Not much I can do apart from put a 'heading' "mode=xxxxxx" :)

On the topic, I feel that it is totally irrational,dogmatic and subjective to a-priori exclude a possibility incuding divine authorship of the Universe and life.

Just a brief reply to Deuc, and by the way, I appreciate the fact that Deuc to his credit has directly addressed the issues I raised, rather than resorting to ridicule.

To quote:

"mykah, a nitpick first: SETI etc. look for patterned signals, not simply non-random singals because pulsars etc. aren't random.

Tools of that sort are by definition, something that has been designed and we know that such things exist."

I accept your correction on the fact that SETI looks for patterned signals, but I beg to differ with the thrust of your comments. Your main point as I understand, is that in those areas (SETI, detective work, archeology) there is prior knowledge of a designer, so it is valid to look for one, but with the order we see in the universe, it is not valid to test and see if there is a designer behind it because nobody has ever seen such a designer.

Very briefly, I find your reasoning fallacious. Why? For one thing, nobody has seen any E.T., so SETI is based only on the possibility that intelligence may be "out there". Likewise, a detective may have a hunch of fould play but is in essentially the same position, he is looking if there signs of intelligent activity, he has not made a prior assumption that there is an active intelligence behind the death or not. Ditto for the archeologist. All this proves, rather than disproves, my point that being open to the possibility of intelligent design of our DNA is in the same category as the examples I gave. It is only those who have a prior assumption (or prejudice) against the idea of intelligent design who pronounce that ID is unscientific. But proclaiming something unscientific before objectively examing the evidence is itself not a scientific attitude. A scientific attitude will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it is to a philosophically unpalatable conclusion.

Sorry MichaelK, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you are trying to convey; I think there's a bit of a language barrier. From what I understand you are saying that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science classes but the option should be there if parents want it?

Philo, it is really hard to tell whether you are being entirely sarcastic, entirely serious or a bit of both. If you are being serious, then you really really need to go explore how evolution actually works. Your caricature seems to assume 1) that biological functions are formed in stages and 2) that animals make a conscious decision to evolve.

Take a population of small blind creatures. A mutation of a gene results in the creation of cells that respond to the presence of light. Some of the population has this mutation, which gives those creatures a very slight edge over the rest of the population (maybe they stay under where it is dark and there is more to feed on etc.). Over time this sub-population grows relative to the total population, now rinse and repeat.

Within that sub-population there are new mutations where there are more photosensitive cells or perhaps it causes an outgrowth. This sub-sub-population also grows in relative size because they have an advantage -- so the beneficial gene propagates. Having an outgrowth while moving lets you determine the source of light, thus larger growths will result in larger numbers of more successful creatures. A semi-spherical shape is a very efficient shape, and computer simulations have shown how easily and quickly the basic shape of an eye can evolve.

Now you have eyes, but having to move your body to get the full picture can let predators know you're there, so movable eyes form. Creatures will be more likely to hang around long enough to reproduce if they have better eyesight, eg. to avoid predators or see them in the distance. So the structure of the eye will change slowly in line with what works, such as lenses, sockets & lids to reduce blindness.

mykah: tomorrow.

Let's just agree to call it "the confusion of Boaz"

>>what I offer and emphasise is the individual encounter with God through Christ, not the radical 'Christianisation' of society in a legislative way, though it must seem like I advocate that at times when I'm speaking purely in 'Christian in a democracy' mode. It must be confusing at times<<

It is confusing, Boaz. You are using different rules to assess the damage caused by institutionalized atheism as against that caused by institutionalised Christianity. What I am unsure about is whether you are aware of this.

But back to the topic.

>>I feel that it is totally irrational,dogmatic and subjective to a-priori exclude a possibility incuding divine authorship of the Universe and life<<

You are absolutely right. If I gave you the impression that I have dismissed the possibility, then I haven't been sufficiently clear. I haven't dismissed any possibility from my consideration, including the intervention of beings from another planet. However, I do tend to grade them in my mind on their likelihood or probability, and on this basis make a decision whether I would prefer my offspring to learn about it as part of science, or in General Studies - metaphysics, philosophy, comparative religion etc.

It is actually quite refreshing to keep an open mind on these issues, Boaz. To be able to continue to ask questions when others have decided they know all the answers is a really good feeling. I can recommend it.

PERICLES.. I'm glad you haven't dismissed the possibility of the divine.

Yes, u may describe my ramblings as 'confusion' and indeed they must seem to be at times with my 2 mode contribution. Especially when people want to lock me into some little box of understanding about my position on various matters.

I don't see much to be gained by the endless examination of the current scientific flavor of the month re creation/evolution. The science is in flux at all times.

The only major point I can make on this topic would be as follows:

In science lectures, on the subject of 'origins' it would not be amiss to mention the idea of creation as 'one' possibility, (but one in which millions believe) that cannot be rejected on any grounds other than dogmatic exclusion. And indeed your point about alien intervention is worthy of a mention.

When we tell young people 'what' to believe and what not to believe, we are always in danger of them doing the opposite. Just so with 'no,God could not have created' will possibly back fire. I can't wait for the report of the teacher who was then confronted with a bright student who came back at him with a few juicy quotes from my favorite atheists :)

We live in exciting times, and the pendulum has reached its peek in the non religious direction, now I see a large group of science ego's grasping at the weight, trying to hold and cling to it so it remains on that extremity of the swing.

Anyway, have a nice day, I'm a bit off color today, aching bones and joints, headache etc.. back to normal soon.
cheers

A thought, BD. What on earth (or in heaven) was the purpose of designing the lurgy from which you're apparently suffering? Assuming for the sake of argument that the world is designed, can you or another ID proponent describe the ways in which the world would be different if it were not the work of a designer?